Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Written by KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr.

| Manager, Product Management

Load Balancing 101: Nuts and Bolts

Load balancing technology is alive and well; in fact, it is the basis from which today’s Application
Deliver Controllers (ADCs) operate. But the pervasiveness of load balancing technology does not
mean it is universally understood, nor is it typically discussed other than from a basic, network-
centric viewpoint. In a more thorough exploration of the subject, this white paper intends to strip
away some of the mystery and magic from basic load balancing practices.

Network-Based Load balancing Hardware

The second iteration of purpose-built load balancing (following application-based proprietary
systems) came about as network-based appliances. These are the true founding fathers of
today’s Application Delivery Controllers. Because these boxes were application-neutral and
resided outside of the application servers themselves, they could achieve load balancing using
straight-forward network techniques. In essence, these devices would present a “virtual server”
address to the outside world and when users attempted to connect, it would forward the
connection on the most appropriate real server doing bi-directional network address translation

Basic Terminology
It would certainly help if everyone used the same lexicon; unfortunately, every vendor of load
balancing devices (and, in turn, ADCs) seems to use different terminology. With a little
explanation, however, the confusion surrounding this issue can easily be alleviated.

The “Node,” “Host,” “Member,” and “Server”

Most load balancers have the concept of a node, host, member, or server; some have all three
and they mean different things. There are two basic concepts that they all try to express. One
concept—usually called a node or server—is the idea of the physical server itself that will receive
traffic from the load balancer. This is synonymous with the IP address of the physical server and,
in the absence of a load balancer, would be the IP address that the server “name” (for
example, www.example.com) would resolve to. For the remainder of this paper, we will refer to
this concept as the “host.” The second concept is a member (sometimes, unfortunately, also
called a node by some manufacturers). A member is usually a little more defined than a
server/node in that it includes the TCP port of the actual application that will be receiving traffic.
For instance, a server named www.example.com may resolve to an address of,
which represents the server/node, and may have an application (a web server) running on TCP
port 80, making the member address Simply put, the member includes the

F5 Networks, Inc. -1- © Jul-07

Written by KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr. | Manager, Product Management

definition of the application port as well as the IP address of the physical server. For the
remainder of this paper, we will refer to this as the “service.”

Why all the complication? The distinction between a physical server and the application services
running on it allows the load balancer to individually interact with the applications instead of the
underlying hardware. A host ( may have more than one service available (HTTP,
FTP, DNS, and so on). By defining each application uniquely (,,
and, the load balancer can now apply unique load balancing and health
monitoring (discussed later) based on the services instead of the host. However, there are still
times when being able to interact with the host (like low-level health monitoring or when taking a
server offline for maintenance) is extremely convenient.

The important part to remember is simply that most load balancing-based technology uses some
concept to represent the host, or physical server, and a second one to represent the services
available on it.

The “Pool,” “Cluster,” and “Farm”

Load balancing allows you to distribute inbound traffic across multiple back-end destinations. It is
therefore a necessity to have the concept of a collection of back-end destinations. Clusters, as we
will refer to them herein, are collections of similar services available on any number of hosts. For
instance, all services that offer the company web page would be collected into a cluster called
“company web page” and all services that offer ecommerce services would be collected into a
cluster called “eCommerce.”

The key element here is that all systems have a collective object that refers to “all similar
services” and makes it easier to work with them as a single unit. This collective object is almost
always made up of services, not hosts.

The “Virtual Server”

Although not always the case, today there is little dissention about the term virtual server or
“virtual.” It is important to note that like the definition of services, the virtual server usually includes
the application port was well as the IP address. Since most vendors use virtual server, we will
continue to use that terminology in the remainder of this paper, although the term “virtual service”
would be more in keeping with the IP:Port convention.

Putting it All Together

Taking all of these concepts and putting them together are really the basic steps in load
balancing. The load balancer presents virtual servers to the outside world. Each virtual server
points to a cluster of services that reside on one or more physical hosts.

F5 Networks, Inc. -2- © Jul-07

Written by KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr. | Manager, Product Management

While this example shown may not be representative of any real-world deployment, it does
provide the basic structure for continuing our discussion of load balancing basics.

Basic Load Balancing

Now that we have a common vocabulary, we can begin to examine the basic load balancing
transaction. As depicted, the load balancer will typically sit in-line between the client and the hosts
that provide the services the client wants to use; like most things in load balancing, this is not a
rule, but more of a best practice of the typical deployment. We will also assume that the load
balancer is already configured with a virtual server that points to a cluster consisting of two
service points. In this deployment scenario, it is also common for the hosts to have a return route
that points back to the load balancer so that return traffic will be processed through it on its way
back to the client.

The basic load balancing transaction is as follows:

1. The client attempts to connect with the service on the load balancer.
2. The load balancer accepts the connection, and after deciding which host should receive
the connection, changes the destination IP (and possibly port) to match the service of the
selected host (note that the source IP of the client is not touched).

F5 Networks, Inc. -3- © Jul-07

Written by KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr. | Manager, Product Management

3. The host accepts the connection and responds back to the original source, the client, via
its default route, the load balancer.
4. The load balancer intercepts the return packet from the host and now changes the source
IP (and possible port) to match the virtual server IP and port, and forwards the packet
back to the client.
5. The client receives the return packet, believing that it came from the virtual server, and
continues the process.

This very simple example is relatively straightforward, but there are a couple of key elements to
point out. First of all, as far as the client knows, it sends packets to the virtual server and the
virtual server responds—simple. Second, the NAT takes place. This is where the load balancer
replaces the destination IP sent by the client (of the virtual server) with the destination IP of the
host to which it has chosen to load balance the request. Step three is the second half of this
process (the part that makes the NAT “bi-directional”). The source IP of the return packet from the
host will be the IP of the host; if this address were not changed and the packet was simply
forwarded to the client, the client would be receiving a packet from someone it didn’t request one
from, and would simply drop it. Instead, the load balancer, remembering the connection, rewrites
the packet so that the source IP is that of the virtual server, thus solving this problem.

The Load balancing Decision

It is usually at this point that two questions arise: how does the load balancer decide which host to
send the connection to; and what happens if the selected host isn’t working?

Let’s discuss the second question first. What happens if the selected host isn’t working? The
simple answer is that it doesn’t respond to the client request and the connection attempt
eventually times-out and fails. This is obviously not a preferred set of circumstances, as it doesn’t
ensure high availability. That’s why most load balancing technology includes some level of “health
monitoring” that determines whether or not a host is actually available before attempting to send
connections to it. There are multiple levels of health monitoring, each with increasing granularity
and focus. A basic monitor would simply PING the host itself. If the host does not respond to
PING, it is a good assumption that any services defined on the host are probably down and
should be removed from the cluster of available services. Unfortunately, even if the host responds
to PING, it doesn’t necessarily mean the service itself is working. Therefore most devices have
the capability of doing “service PINGs” of some kind, ranging from simple TCP connections all the
way to interacting with the application via a scripted or intelligent interaction. These higher-level

F5 Networks, Inc. -4- © Jul-07

Written by KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr. | Manager, Product Management

health monitors not only provide better confidence in the availability of the actual services (as
opposed to the host), but they also allow the load balancer to differentiate between multiple
services on a single host. The load balancer understands that while one service might be
unavailable, other services on the same host might be working just fine and should still be
considered as valid destinations for user traffic.

This brings us back to the first question: how does the load balancer decide which host to send a
connection request to? Each virtual server has a specific dedicated cluster of services (listing the
hosts that offer that service) which makes up the list of possibilities. In addition to that, the health
monitoring previously discussed modifies that list to make a list of “currently available” hosts that
provide the indicated service. It is this modified list from which the load balancer chooses the host
that will receive a new connection. Deciding the exact host depends on the load balancing
algorithm associated with that particular cluster. The most common is simple round-robin where
the load balancer simply goes down the list starting at the top and allocating each new connection
to the next host; when it reaches the bottom of the list, it simply starts again at the top. While this
is simple and very predictable, it assumes that all connections will have a similar load and
duration on the back-end host, which is not always true. More advanced algorithms use things like
current-connection counts, host utilization, and even real-world response times for existing traffic
to the host in order to pick the most appropriate host from the available cluster services.

Sufficiently advanced load balancing systems will also be able to synthesize health monitor
information with load balancing algorithms to include an understanding of service dependency.
This is the case where a single host has multiple services, all of which are necessary to complete
the user’s request. A common example would be in eCommerce situations where a single host
will provide both standard HTTP services (port 80) as well as HTTPS (SSL/TLS at port 443). In
many of these circumstances, you don’t want a user going to a host that has one service
operational, but not the other. In other words, if the HTTPS services should fail on a host, you
also want that host’s HTTP service to be taken out of the cluster list of available services. This
functionality is increasingly important as HTTP-like services become more differentiated with XML
and scripting.

To Load Balance or Not to Load Balance?

Load balancing in regards to picking an available service when a client initiates a transaction
request is only half of the solution. Once the connection is established, the load balancer must
keep track of whether the following traffic from that user should be load balanced or not. There
are generally two specific issues with handling follow-on traffic once it has been load balanced:
connection maintenance and persistence.

If the user is trying to utilize a long-lived TCP connection (telnet, FTP, and more.) that doesn’t
immediately close, the load balancer must make sure that multiple data packets carried across
that connection do not get load balanced to other available service hosts. This is connection
maintenance and requires two key capabilities: 1) the ability to keep track of open connections
and the host service they belong to; and 2) the ability to continue to monitor that connection so
that the connection table can be updated when the connection closes. This is rather standard fare
for most load balancers.

Increasingly more common, however, is when the client uses multiple short-lived TCP
connections (for example, HTTP) to accomplish a single task. In some cases, like standard web
browsing, it doesn’t matter and each new request can go to any of the back end service hosts;
however, there are many more instances (for example, XML, eCommerce “shopping cart,”
HTTPS, and so on) where it is extremely important that multiple connections from the same user
go to the same back-end service host and not be load balanced. This concept is called
persistence or server affinity. There are multiple ways to deal with this issue depending on the
protocol and the desired results. For example, in modern HTTP transactions, the server can
specify a “keep-alive” connection which turns those multiple short-lived connections into a single

F5 Networks, Inc. -5- © Jul-07

Written by KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr. | Manager, Product Management

long-lived connection which can be handled just like the other long-lived connections.
Unfortunately this is not enough and provides little relief. Even worse, as the use of Web services
increases, keeping all of these connections open longer than necessary would place a strain on
the resources of the entire system. In these cases, most load balancers provide other
mechanisms for creating artificial server affinity.

One of the most basic forms of persistence is source-address affinity. This involves simply
recording the source IP address of incoming requests and the service host they were load
balanced to and making all future transaction go to the same host. This is also an easy way to
deal with application dependency as it can be applied across all virtual servers and all services. In
practice however, the wide-spread use of proxy servers on the Internet, as well as internally in
enterprise networks, renders this form of persistence almost useless; while it works, proxy-servers
inherently hide many users behind a single IP address resulting in none of those users being load
balanced after the first user’s request—essentially nullifying the load balancing capability. Today,
the intelligence of load balancer-based devices allows you to actually open up the data packets
and create persistence tables for virtually anything within it. This allows you to use much more
unique and identifiable information such as username to maintain persistence; although, one must
take care to make sure that this identifiable client’s information will be present in every request
made, as any packets without it will not be persisted and will be load balanced again, most likely
breaking the application.

Load Balancing Today

This white paper has described the very beginning basics of load balancing technology. It is
important to understand that this technology, while still in use, is now only considered a feature of
ADCs. ADCs have evolved from the first load balancers and have completed the service
virtualization process enabling them to not only improve availability, but also impact the security
and performance of the application services being requested. Today, most organizations realize
that simply being able to reach the application doesn’t make it usable; and unusable applications
mean wasted time and money for the enterprise deploying them. ADCs allow the consolidation of
network-based services like SSL/TLS offload, caching, compression, rate-shaping, intrusion
detection, application firewalls, and even remote access into a single point that can be shared and
re-utilized across all application services and all hosts creating a virtualized application delivery
network. At the same time, without the basic load balancing foundation described herein, none of
the enhanced functionality of ADCs would be possible.

F5 Networks, Inc. -6- © Jul-07